Readiness and Willingness Under Section 16(c) Is Not a Ritualistic Phrase — Plaintiff Must Prove It With Substance, Not Just Words: Karnataka High Court FIR in Disproportionate Assets Case Quashed: Patna High Court Slams SP for 'Non-Application of Mind' and 'Absence of Credible Source Information' Ownership of Vehicle Linked to Commercial Quantity of Heroin – Custodial Interrogation Necessary: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail under Section 482 BNSS Death Caused by Rash Driving Is Not a Private Dispute — No FIR Quashing on Basis of Compromise in Section 106 BNS Cases: Punjab & Haryana High Court No Bank Can Override Court Orders: Rajasthan High Court Slams Axis Bank for Unauthorized Withdrawal from Court-Ordered FD" Indian Courts Cannot Invalidate Foreign Arbitral Awards Passed Under Foreign Law: Madhya Pradesh High Court Enforces Texas-Based Award Despite Commercial Court’s Contrary Decree Sudden Quarrel over Mound of Earth — Not Murder but Culpable Homicide: Allahabad High Court Eligibility Flows from Birth, Not a Certificate Date: Delhi High Court Strikes Down Rule Fixing Arbitrary Cut-Off for OBC-NCL Certificates in CAPF (AC) Recruitment Bar Under Order II Rule 2 CPC Cannot Be Invoked Where Specific Performance Was Legally Premature Due To Statutory Impediments: P&H High Court Calling Wife by Her Caste Name in Public Just Before Suicide is Immediate Cause of Self-Immolation: Madras High Court Upholds Husband’s Conviction Under Section 306 IPC No Work No Pay Is Not a Universal Rule: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dock Identification Without Prior TIP Is Absolutely Useless: P&H High Court Upholds Acquittal in Attempt to Murder Case Filing Forged Court Pleadings in Union Government’s Name is Criminal Contempt: Karnataka High Court Sentences Litigant to Jail Execution of Will Proved, But Probate Justly Denied Due to Concealment of Property Sale: Delhi High Court Mere Designation Doesn’t Establish Criminal Liability: Bombay High Court Quashes Proceedings Against ICICI Officials in Octroi Evasion Case Fraud on Power Voids the Order: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Karnataka BJP Leader R. Ashoka, Slams Politically Motivated Prosecution Cause of Fire Is Immaterial If Fire Itself Is Insured Peril: Supreme Court Rebukes Insurer’s Repudiation Dragging a Trained Army Officer Up 20 Steps Without Resistance? The Story Lacks Credence: Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal in Army Officer’s Murder Semen Stains Alone Do Not Prove Rape: Supreme Court Acquits Doctor Accused of Rape No Mortgage, No SARFAESI: Supreme Court Rules Against NEDFi, Says Recovery Action in Nagaland Without Security Agreement Was Illegal Parity Cannot Be Denied by Geography: Supreme Court Holds Jharkhand Bound by Patna HC's Judgment, Orders Pay Revision for Industries Officer Once Power Flows Continuously from a Synchronized Turbine, It Is No Longer Infirm: Supreme Court Orders TANGEDCO to Pay Fixed Charges to Penna Electricity

Delhi High Court Upholds Equestrian Selection Criteria for Paris Olympics 2024, Dismisses Allegations of Bias

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Delhi, July 2024: The Delhi High Court has dismissed the writ petition filed by Shruti Vora challenging the selection criteria established by the Equestrian Federation of India (EFI) for the Dressage event at the Paris Olympic Games 2024. The court, in its judgment delivered by Justice Sanjeev Narula, upheld the selection criteria as balanced and in compliance with the Fédération Équestre Internationale (FEI) guidelines.

Shruti Vora, a prominent Indian Dressage athlete, filed a writ petition contesting the selection of Anush Agarwalla by EFI to represent India in the Dressage event at the upcoming Paris Olympics. Vora argued that the selection criteria were arbitrary, discriminatory, and unfairly favored Agarwalla by relying on outdated performance metrics rather than recent form.

The court emphasized that the selection criteria adhered strictly to the FEI standards, ensuring both fairness and rationality. "The criteria reflect a balanced approach, incorporating both historical performance and current form," stated Justice Narula. The selection was based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events in the past year, which the court found to be a fair measure of an athlete's consistent performance.

Justice Narula reiterated the principle of judicial restraint in interfering with sports federations' selection criteria, citing precedents like Manini Kaushik v. National Rifle Association of India and Sushil Kumar v. Union of India. The court held that judicial intervention is warranted only in cases of manifest arbitrariness or perversity, neither of which was evident in this case.

Addressing the importance of consistency, the court found that Agarwalla's selection was based on his consistent high performance over the specified period. The use of historical performance metrics, the court noted, ensures the selection of stable and consistently high-performing athletes.

The judgment extensively discussed the principles of evaluating evidence and the appropriateness of using both past and recent performance metrics. The court upheld the EFI’s criteria, which mandated that an athlete-horse combination must achieve a minimum eligibility requirement (MER) of 67% in two FEI-listed qualification events between January 1, 2023, and June 24, 2024. In cases where multiple athletes met this requirement, the selection would then be based on the highest average scores from the best four Grand Prix events within the qualifying period.

Justice Narula remarked, "The integration of historical performance data ensures that selections are based on sustained excellence rather than transient form, thereby aligning with the principles of fairness and rationality."

The Delhi High Court’s decision to dismiss the petition underscores the judiciary's commitment to upholding fair and rational selection processes in sports. By affirming the EFI's adherence to FEI guidelines, the judgment sends a strong message about the reliability and integrity of established selection criteria. This landmark decision is expected to have a significant impact on future sports selections, reinforcing the legal framework for addressing disputes in sports governance.

 

Date of Decision: July 4, 2024

Shruti Vora v. Equestrian Federation of India & Ors.

Latest Legal News